Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the conduct of a school admissions appeal. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify further investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council has not administered the school appeals process correctly because it did not include a school representative at the appeal and had not shared the admission authority’s information in advance. She also complains the Council had not sent her the clerks notes that she requested after the hearing.
2. Miss X says this has caused distress in that she feels she can’t be confident the appeals process was fair. She wants the Council to consider the appeal panel and if fault is identified, for a new appeal to be heard.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), section 34(B))
4. We consider whether there was fault in the way a school admissions appeals panel made its decision. If there was no fault in how the panel made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. If we find fault, which calls into question the panel’s decision, we may ask for a new appeal hearing. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Miss X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Miss X made an application to a preferred school for a place for her child, Child Y, to start in September 2026. Miss X made the application before the deadline. Child Y was not allocated a place at the school. This was following the application of the oversubscription criteria. Child Y lives further away from the school than the last child allocated a place.
8. Miss X appealed the decision. An appeal panel heard the case in June 2026. Miss X’s appeal was unsuccessful. Miss X complained to us in August 2026.
9. The Council, in response to our enquiries, demonstrated that the invitation and appeal pack was sent to parties in accordance with statutory timelines set out in the School Admissions Appeal Code. The clerk told Miss X that he was seeking legal advice about sharing the hearing notes. The Council, in response to our enquiries, informed us that notes have since been shared with Miss X.
10. Miss X complained about how class sizes were considered. The proposed class structure for 26/27 was three classes of 20. The panel was told this would revert to two classes of 30 for the same cohort in 27/28. The panel must consider future class size prejudice. The panel found that the admission of an additional child would cause future class size prejudice, as the infant class size limit is 30. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant further investigation.
11. A school representative is not required to attend an admissions appeal. Based on the evidence provided to us, the Council shared required information in advance of the hearing and in line with the School Admissions Appeal Code. Point 2.30 of the School Admissions Appeal Code 2022 notes clerks should obtain legal advice prior to sharing such notes or records. After seeking this advice, the Council has since shared notes with Miss X. As the Council has followed the requirements in the School Admissions Appeal Code 2022 There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant further investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman